Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 18 references

The relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant of a compact $4$-manifold

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces the relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant $r\mathcal{L}(X)$ for compact 4-manifolds with boundary and proves that, for rational homology balls, $r\mathcal{L}(X)=0$ exactly when $X$ is diffeomorphic to the standard 4-ball…

desk verdict A valuable new relative invariant with genuinely new moves and an algorithm, but the proof of the main detection theorem has an unjustified ordering argument in Claim 4.7. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05371 v2 pith:NYL2Y7FF submitted 2019-08-14 math.GT

Nickolas A. Castro , Gabriel Islambouli , Maggie Miller , Maggy Tomova This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.GT MSC 57M9957R1557M15
keywords relativeL-invarianttrisections4-manifoldswithboundaryrationalhomologyballcutcomplexMurasugisumdoubletwistopenbookdecomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces a numerical invariant, the relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant $r\mathcal{L}(X)$, computed from shortest paths in a cut complex attached to a trisection surface of a compact 4-manifold $X$ with boundary. The main theorem states that if $X$ is a rational homology ball, then $r\mathcal{L}(X)=0$ if and only if $X$ is diffeomorphic to the standard 4-ball. This gives a trisection-theoretic way to recognize the 4-ball among rational homology balls, parallel to how the closed-manifold version of the invariant detects the 4-sphere among rational homology spheres. The paper also supplies two structural tools: an explicit algorithm for gluing relatively trisected 4-manifolds by any Murasugi sum, and a proof that any two relative trisections of a given 4-manifold are related by interior stabilization, relative stabilization, and a new 'relative double twist' move.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant $r\mathcal{L}(X)$, defined by minimizing, over relative trisection diagrams, the quantity $|\delta|-3(g+p+b-1)+(k_1+k_2+k_3)$, where $\delta$ is a valid path in the $p$-cut complex $\mathcal{H}\mathcal{T}_p(\Sigma)$ of the trisection surface $\Sigma$. In this complex, vertices are cut systems consisting of $g-p$ closed curves and $2p+b-1$ arcs; type-0 edges represent generalized handleslides, type-0$\partial$ edges represent slides of arcs with common endpoints, and type-1 edges represent replacing a curve by one that intersects it in a single point. A path is valid if it travels through the $\alpha$-, $\beta$-, and $\gamma$-components of the complex in order, with the minimal possible number of type-1 edges between good pairs (pairs of cut systems connected by exactly the algebraic minimum of type-1 edges). The other load-bearing construction is the relative double twist, a diagram-level move that realizes a $\partial U$ move on the boundary open book; together with relative stabilization it connects any two relative trisections of a fixed 4-manifold.

What would settle it

Take any known contractible 4-manifold that is not diffeomorphic to the 4-ball, compute $r\mathcal{L}$ from one of its relative trisection diagrams, and check whether the normalized minimum valid-path length is zero; a zero value for such a manifold would disprove the theorem. At the proof level, exhibit a valid path in which the curve $\beta_i$ must be replaced by $\gamma_j$ before $\beta_1$ is replaced by $\gamma_1$, contrary to the ordering used in Claim 4.7.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant $r\mathcal{L}(X)$ detects exactly the standard 4-ball among rational homology balls. Concretely, $r\mathcal{L}(X)=0$ for a rational homology ball $X$ if and only if $X\cong B^4$; the forward direction is Theorem 4.5, and the reverse direction follows from Remark 3.7, where the trivial $(0,0;0,1)$-trisection of $B^4$ has an empty valid path and hence $r\mathcal{L}(B^4)=0$. The invariant is defined as the minimum, over all relative trisections of $X$, of the normalized length of a valid path in the $p$-cut complex of the trisection surface; a zero value forces the minimizing path to consist entirely of type-1 edges connecting good pairs. The proof then reduces the diagram by destabilizing along a parallel pair of curves, inductively stripping away genus until the diagram must decompose as a connected sum of the trivial $B^4$ diagram and genus-1 $S^4$ trisections, which describes $B^4$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, after simplifying a minimal relative trisection diagram, the shortest path used to define the invariant survives the simplification without getting longer, and this survival depends on the order in which curves are exchanged along the path.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For rational homology balls, the relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant is a complete detector of the 4-ball: $r\mathcal{L}(X)=0$ if and only if $X\cong B^4$.
  • For a closed rational homology 4-sphere $\widehat{X}$, the closed $\mathcal{L}$-invariant vanishes if and only if $\widehat{X}\cong S^4$ (Corollary 4.8).
  • Small boundary complexity forces the boundary to be a connected sum of $S^1\times S^2$'s: $r\mathcal{L}_\partial(T)\le 1$ implies $\partial X\cong \#_{2p+b-1}S^1\times S^2$, and below a related threshold $\partial X$ has an $S^1\times S^2$ summand.
  • There are 4-manifolds with arbitrarily large relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant, including families whose boundary homology stays bounded (Corollaries 4.4 and 5.8).
  • Relative trisections of a fixed 4-manifold are unique up to interior stabilization, relative stabilization, and relative double twists, removing the previous need to fix the boundary open book or assume rational-homology-sphere boundary.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because $r\mathcal{L}(X)=0$ characterizes the 4-ball among rational homology balls, the invariant can serve as an obstruction: a rational homology ball that is known not to be $B^4$ would need to have $r\mathcal{L}(X)>0$, so computations on explicit trisection diagrams could certify nontriviality.
  • The Murasugi-sum algorithm suggests testable subadditivity properties: one might ask whether $r\mathcal{L}(X\# Y)\le r\mathcal{L}(X)+r\mathcal{L}(Y)$ or whether $r\mathcal{L}$ respects Murasugi sums of the boundary open books; the paper does not address these inequalities.
  • The relative double twist gives a trisection-level way to change the boundary open book by a $\partial U$ move, so one could use it to define distances between relative trisections with different boundary data, or to convert any relative trisection into one inducing a prescribed open book on the same boundary 3-manifold; this goes beyond the paper's uniqueness statement.
  • A natural quantitative question the paper leaves open is whether $r\mathcal{L}(X)=r\mathcal{L}_\circ(X)+r\mathcal{L}_\partial(X)$ (Question 3.12); if true, the interior and boundary contributions to the invariant would each be separately computable and could give finer information about 4-manifolds with small invariant.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a relative L-invariant rL(X) for smooth, orientable, compact 4-manifolds with connected boundary, defined by measuring the lengths of certain paths in the p-cut complex HT_p(Σ) associated to a relative trisection surface. Two related invariants, rL∂(X) and rL◦(X), are also defined. The main theorem states that if X is a rational homology ball and rL(X)=0, then X is diffeomorphic to B^4, giving a trisection-theoretic analogue of the Kirby–Thompson result for closed 4-manifolds. The paper also proves a uniqueness theorem for relative trisections up to interior stabilization, relative stabilization, and a new relative double twist move, and gives an explicit algorithm for performing Murasugi sums of relatively trisected 4-manifolds.

Significance. If the main results are correct, this is a substantive contribution to trisection theory: it provides the first relative analogue of the L-invariant and shows that it detects the standard 4-ball among rational homology balls. The construction is self-contained, and the proofs are generally detailed. The Murasugi sum gluing algorithm and the strengthened uniqueness theorem for relative trisections are also valuable, as they address previously open structural questions. The paper also includes explicit computations and bounds relating rL∂ to the arc complex, which will be useful for future applications.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.2] The case analysis in the proof of Theorem 4.2 is incomplete as written. The proof labels two different cases as "Case 3", and the second of these reads "a0 changes to arc c0 in Aγ (which is not also in Aγ)", which is self-contradictory. The intended case appears to be the one in which the arc changes once into the terminal Aα cut system, and the reduction to Case 2 by reversing the path is asserted without a precise formulation. Since Corollary 4.4 relies on Theorem 4.2 to produce lower bounds on rL, this proof must be completed before Theorem 4.2 can be considered established.
  2. [Section 4, Claim 4.7] The order-of-edges argument in Claim 4.7 is valid but too terse. The proof should explicitly state that every vertex of HT_p is a disjoint cut system and that a type 1 edge adds a curve which is disjoint from all curves in the cut system other than the one it replaces. With that convention, β_i ∩ γ_1 ≠ ∅ forces the edge E replacing β_i to precede the edge E_{β_1}, and γ_j ∩ β_1 ≠ ∅ forces E_{β_1} to precede E, giving the desired contradiction. No actual gap remains, but the exposition should be clarified so that future readers do not misread the argument as relying on an unjustified implication.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.5] The phrase "a path δ in HT0(Σ) from vα to vγ to vγ" should read "from vα to vβ to vγ", since the path is composed of the α-to-β and β-to-γ segments.
  2. [Section 3, Remark 3.15] The numerical claims rL(T') = 2 and rL(T'') = 4 are asserted without computation or reference to a proof, and the sentence contains an unmatched closing parenthesis. Please either add the missing justification or clearly mark these as examples awaiting later results.
  3. [Section 5, Corollary 5.6] The sentence "By combining Lemma 5.5 and Proposition 5" should refer to Proposition 5.3, not "Proposition 5".
  4. [Section 4, proof of Theorem 4.2] In addition to the duplicate Case 3 label, the first Case 3 ends with a conclusion about the monodromy fixing an essential arc, but the text does not fully justify why sliding over β curves, after the α and β curves are made standard, implies isotopy in the α-page. This is likely fixable by a short argument, but it should be spelled out.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the relative L-invariant is defined from scratch and its main theorems are proved from that definition plus external background results.

full rationale

The paper defines the relative L-invariant rL(X) directly in Section 3.1 from a new p-cut complex HTp(Sigma) and a new notion of valid path; no parameter is fitted to data and no 'prediction' is reused as an input. The if-and-only-if statement for rational homology balls is obtained in two independent directions: Remark 3.7 computes rL(B^4)=0 from the empty path, and Theorem 4.5 derives diffeomorphism to B^4 from rL(X)=0 via Lemma 4.1 and an induction on trisection genus. The paper cites earlier work by its own authors (e.g., [Cas16], [CGPC18a], [CGPC18b], [CO19]), but these are published results with independent proofs used as background ingredients, not restatements of the target theorem. The uniqueness result Theorem 2.17 relies on Piergallini-Zuddas [PZ18] and Gay-Kirby [GK16], and the Murasugi gluing Theorem 3.20 is an explicit construction rather than a renamed known result. I find no step where a claim reduces by definition to its input or where a fitted value is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; the relative double twist is a move, not an object. It relies on established background: Laudenbach-Poenaru, Gay-Kirby existence, CGPC18a diagram description and monodromy algorithm, Waldhausen's theorem, Piergallini-Zuddas, and Etnyre-Li. The only normalizing constants in the invariant are definitions chosen to make interior stabilization monotone, not fitted parameters.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Laudenbach-Poenaru theorem (LP72): every self-diffeomorphism of the boundary of a 4-dimensional 1-handlebody extends over the handlebody.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 to show a trisection is determined by its spine of handlebodies.
  • standard math Waldhausen's theorem (Wal68): Heegaard diagrams of #^k S^1 x S^2 have a standard form up to slides.
    Used in Section 2.5 and in the definition of good pairs to fix the minimal number of type 1 edges.
  • domain assumption Gay-Kirby existence (GK16): every compact 4-manifold with boundary admits a relative trisection inducing any given open book decomposition on the boundary.
    Foundation of the paper, used in Section 2.2 to establish the objects under study.
  • domain assumption Castro-Gay-Pinzon-Caicedo (CGPC18a): every relative trisection is described by a relative trisection diagram and the monodromy algorithm computes the boundary open book.
    Used throughout Sections 2.4 and 3 to translate between diagrams and open books.
  • domain assumption Piergallini-Zuddas (PZ18, Theorem 2.13): any two open books on a 3-manifold are related by Hopf stabilizations and ∂U moves.
    Essential for Theorem 2.17 on uniqueness of relative trisections.
  • domain assumption Etnyre-Li (EL15): if the displacement distance of the monodromy in the arc complex is zero or one, then the 3-manifold splits off S^1 x S^2 or the open book admits a Hopf destabilization.
    Used in Section 5 to bound rL∂ from below in terms of the arc complex.
  • standard math Hatcher-Thurston (HT80): the cut complex of a surface is connected.
    Used in Lemma 3.18 to connect arcs differing by monodromy when gluing two trisections.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant of a compact $4$-manifold." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NYL2Y7FF

@misc{pith2026190805371,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The relative $\mathcalL$-invariant of a compact $4$-manifold},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NYL2Y7FF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05371}
}
abstract

In this paper, we introduce the relative $\mathcal{L}$-invariant $r\mathcal{L}(X)$ of a smooth, orientable, compact 4-manifold $X$ with boundary. This invariant is defined by measuring the lengths of certain paths in the cut complex of a trisection surface for $X$. This is motivated by the definition of the $\mathcal{L}$-invariant for smooth, orientable, closed 4-manifolds by Kirby and Thompson. We show that if $X$ is a rational homology ball, then $r\mathcal{L}(X)=0$ if and only if $X\cong B^4$. In order to better understand relative trisections, we also produce an algorithm to glue two relatively trisected 4-manifold by any Murasugi sum or plumbing in the boundary, and also prove that any two relative trisections of a given 4-manifold $X$ are related by interior stabilization, relative stabilization, and the relative double twist, which we introduce in this paper as a trisection version of one of Piergallini and Zuddas's moves on open book decompositions. Previously, it was only known (by Gay and Kirby) that relative trisections inducing equivalent open books on $X$ are related by interior stabilizations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05371 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Standard position for a pair of collections of curves in a (g, k; p, b)-relative trisection diagram We say that a relative trisection diagram D describes or determines the relative trisection T = (X1, X2, X3) if T has the property that under some identification X1 ∩ X2 ∩ X3 with Σ (hence the naming convention), then i) X1 ∩ X2 strongly deformation retracts to Σ ∪ (3-dimensional 2– handles along the (g − p) α curves)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Modifying a Lefschetz fibration F by adding a cancelling 1-2–pair. In [PZ18], this is referred to as an S move. This induces a Hopf stabilization to the bounding open book decomposition. In general, one could attach the Hopf band to different boundary components. The new regular fiber is obtained from the old fiber by adding a band. The new (last) vanishing cycle runs over a core of this band. where σi = ( −1 the lo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The effect of wrinkling a vanishing cycle. In a neighborhood of a Lefschetz singularity, there is a local perturbation (z, w) 7→ z 2 + w 2 + tRe(w), known as wrinkling, which changes the nodal singularity to a triply cusped singular set. Roughly speaking, in the case of Lefschetz fibrations over the disk, wrinkling all of the singularities will result in a relative trisection (diagram) which induces the same open bo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Local illustration of positive and negative relative stabilization. Compare to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: a schematic of a disk D in a trisection surface Σ for a trisection T of a 4-manifold X4 satisfying the relative double twist criterion. We shade the copy of D × D2 inside X. Right: a trisection diagram of he trisec￾tion (Y1, Y2, Y3) of S 2 × D2 . We shade the dis…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Moving from Figure (A) to figure (B) is an in￾stance of the relative double twist on relative trisection dia￾gram, if D satisfies the relative double twist criterion, as in Definition 2.14. See Remark 2.16 if interested in finding such a disk. The surface Σ0 is obtaine…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Moving from Figure (A) to figure (E), we show how to diagrammatically perform the relative double twist to a relative trisection diagram. Not illustrated: we preemp￾tively standardize the α and β curves of the starting relative trisection diagram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Standard genus g Heegaard diagram for #k1S 1 × S 2 . Definition 2.20. Let X be a 4-manifold with (g, k)-trisection T , and let Hα ∪ Hβ ∪ Hγ be the spine of T . Let δ be a loop in HT(Σ). We say that δ is valid with respect to T if δ includes (not necessarily distinct) v…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A genus 1 trisection of S 4 whose corresponding path in the cut complex has length 2. this yields lX,T #T 0 ≤ lX,T + 2 LX,T #T 0 + 3(g + 1) − k1 − k2 − k3 − 1 ≤ LX,T + 3g − k1 − k2 − k3 + 2 LX,T #T 0 ≤ LX,T . Thus, LX,T does not increase under stabilization. This shoul…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Wrinkling the Lefschetz singularities to obtain a relative tri￾section diagram. As another example, let T 00 be a (2, 2; 0, 3)-relative trisection of B4 ob￾tained from T by a relative double twist. Again by Lemma 4.1, we must have rL ∂ (T 00) > 0 = rL(T ). (In fact, b…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A relative trisection diagram D and a path δ ∈ HTp(Σ) valid with respect to D. See Example 3.16 for a more detailed caption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Theorem 3.20 allows us to glue two trisected 4- manifolds and induce any desired Murasugi sum of the open books induced on their boundaries. Aα, Aα). Since Aα, Aα are disjoint from α, [C1] + · · · + [Cn] is in the span of the α curves in H1(Σ). Therefore, there exist …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Destabilizing a relative trisection diagram as in the proof of Theorem 4.5. H1(∂Xn; Z) ∼= ⊕nZ/2, we then have 2p + b − 1 ≥ n. Since ∂Xn ∼= #nL(2, 1) does not admit an S 1 × S 2 summand, Theorem 4.2 implies rL(Xn) ≥ rL ∂ (Xn) ≥ 2n. Now we deal with the global topology …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The arcs a and b are disjoint from the arcs b 0 1 and b 00 1 . Disjoint arcs on a surface will not necessarily project to disjoint arcs on a subsurface. The issue arises when both arcs are projected onto the same boundary component. In this case one can quickly verify…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Diagrams of *-Trisections

    Jos \'e Rom \'a n Aranda and Jesse Moeller . Diagrams of *-Trisections . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1911.06467, November 2019

    arXiv 1911

  2. [2]

    Nickolas A. Castro. Relative trisections of smooth 4-manifolds with boundary . PhD thesis, University of Georgia, 2016. https://nickcastromath.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/thesis.pdf

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Castro, David T

    Nickolas A. Castro, David T. Gay, and Juanita Pinz\' o n-Caicedo. Diagrams for relative trisections. Pacific J. Math. , 294(2):275--305, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Castro, David T

    Nickolas A. Castro, David T. Gay, and Juanita Pinz\' o n-Caicedo. Trisections of 4-manifolds with boundary. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 115(43):10861--10868, 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Castro and Burak Ozbagci

    Nickolas A. Castro and Burak Ozbagci . Trisections of 4-manifolds via Lefschetz fibrations . Math. Res. Lett. , 26(2):383--420, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    The arc complex and contact geometry: nondestabilizable planar open book decompositions of the tight contact 3-sphere

    John Etnyre and Youlin Li. The arc complex and contact geometry: nondestabilizable planar open book decompositions of the tight contact 3-sphere. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN , 2015(5):1401--1420, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Cusp geometry of fibered 3-manifolds

    David Futer and Saul Schleimer. Cusp geometry of fibered 3-manifolds. Amer. J. Math. , 136(2):309--356, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    On the stable equivalence of open books in three-manifolds

    Emmanuel Giroux and Noah Goodman. On the stable equivalence of open books in three-manifolds. Geom. Topol. , 10:97--114, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 18 references
  1. [9]

    Trisecting 4-manifolds

    David Gay and Robion Kirby. Trisecting 4-manifolds. Geom. Topol. , 20(6):3097--3132, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Hatcher and W

    A. Hatcher and W. Thurston. A presentation for the mapping class group of a closed orientable surface. Topology , 19(3):221--237, 1980

    1980

  3. [11]

    Trisections of surface complements and the P rice twist

    Seungwon Kim and Maggie Miller . Trisections of surface complements and the P rice twist . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1805.00429, May 2018. To appear in Algebr. Geom. Topol

    2018 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A new invariant of 4-manifolds

    Robion Kirby and Abigail Thompson. A new invariant of 4-manifolds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , 115(43):10857--10860, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    A note on 4-dimensional handlebodies

    Fran c ois Laudenbach and Valentin Po\' e naru. A note on 4-dimensional handlebodies. Bull. Soc. Math. France , 100:337--344, 1972

    1972

  6. [14]

    Trisections of non-orientable 4-manifolds

    Maggie Miller and Patrick Naylor . Trisections of non-orientable 4-manifolds . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:2010.07433, October 2020

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Stipsicz

    Burak Ozbagci and Andr \'a s I. Stipsicz. Surgery on contact 3-manifolds and S tein surfaces , volume 13 of Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies . Springer-Verlag, Berlin; J\'anos Bolyai Mathematical Society, Budapest, 2004

    2004

  8. [16]

    Special moves for open book decompositions of 3-manifolds

    Riccardo Piergallini and Daniele Zuddas. Special moves for open book decompositions of 3-manifolds. J. Knot Theory Ramifications , 27(11):1843008, 16, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Fibrations of 3-manifolds and asymptotic translation length in the arc complex

    Bal \'a zs Strenner . Fibrations of 3-manifolds and asymptotic translation length in the arc complex . arXiv e-prints , page arXiv:1810.07236, Oct 2018

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Heegaard- Z erlegungen der 3 - S ph\"are

    Friedhelm Waldhausen. Heegaard- Z erlegungen der 3 - S ph\"are. Topology , 7:195--203, 1968

    1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.